Articles | Volume 2, issue 1
https://doi.org/10.5194/gc-2-69-2019
© Author(s) 2019. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
https://doi.org/10.5194/gc-2-69-2019
© Author(s) 2019. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Research article
| 
06 Mar 2019
Research article |
| 06 Mar 2019
| 06 Mar 2019
The takeover of science communication: how science lost its leading role in the public discourse on carbon capture and storage research in daily newspapers in Germany
Institute for Geosciences, University of Potsdam, Potsdam, 14476,
Germany
Related authors
Simon Schneider and Liv Heinecke
Adv. Geosci., 46, 11–19, https://doi.org/10.5194/adgeo-46-11-2019, https://doi.org/10.5194/adgeo-46-11-2019, 2019
Short summary
Short summary
This article is about the importance of recognizing and accepting intercultural differences in the way science is understood and interpreted. By taking individual routines of interpreting science into account, science communication and science management will become more efficient and successful in terms of integrating local communities and non-scientific audiences.
We provide examples of how to consider intercultural context while planning field research.
Simon Schneider and Liv Heinecke
Adv. Geosci., 46, 11–19, https://doi.org/10.5194/adgeo-46-11-2019, https://doi.org/10.5194/adgeo-46-11-2019, 2019
Short summary
Short summary
This article is about the importance of recognizing and accepting intercultural differences in the way science is understood and interpreted. By taking individual routines of interpreting science into account, science communication and science management will become more efficient and successful in terms of integrating local communities and non-scientific audiences.
We provide examples of how to consider intercultural context while planning field research.
Related subject area
Subject: Geoscience engagement | Keyword: Public communication of science
Understanding representations of uncertainty, an eye-tracking study – Part 1: The effect of anchoring
Understanding representations of uncertainty, an eye-tracking study – Part 2: The effect of expertise
A Spectrum of Geoscience Communication: From Dissemination to Participation
GC Insights: Nature stripes for raising engagement with biodiversity loss
Exploring TikTok as a promising platform for geoscience communication
How to get your message across: designing an impactful knowledge transfer plan in a European project
Magnetic to the Core – communicating palaeomagnetism with hands-on activities
Communicating uncertainties in spatial predictions of grain micronutrient concentration
The Met Office Weather Game: investigating how different methods for presenting probabilistic weather forecasts influence decision-making
Building bridges between experts and the public: a comparison of two-way communication formats for flooding and air pollution risk
Kelsey J. Mulder, Louis Williams, Matthew Lickiss, Alison Black, Andrew Charlton-Perez, Rachel McCloy, and Eugene McSorley
Geosci. Commun., 6, 97–110, https://doi.org/10.5194/gc-6-97-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/gc-6-97-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
It is vital that uncertainty in environmental forecasting is graphically presented to enable people to use and interpret it correctly. Using novel eye-tracking methods, we show that where people look and the decisions they make are both strongly influenced by construction of forecast representations common in presentations of environmental data. This suggests that forecasters should construct their presentations carefully so that they help people to extract important information more easily.
Louis Williams, Kelsey J. Mulder, Andrew Charlton-Perez, Matthew Lickiss, Alison Black, Rachel McCloy, Eugene McSorley, and Joe Young
Geosci. Commun., 6, 111–123, https://doi.org/10.5194/gc-6-111-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/gc-6-111-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
When constructing graphical environmental forecasts involving uncertainty, it is important to consider the background and expertise of end-users. Using novel eye-tracking methods, we show that where people look and the decisions they make are both strongly influenced by prior expertise and the graphical construction of forecast representations common in presentations of environmental data. We suggest that forecasters should construct their presentations carefully, bearing these factors in mind.
Sam Illingworth
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-975, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-975, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
In this article, I explore the various ways the geosciences can be communicated to a wider audience. I focus on creative methods that range from sharing information to involving the public in the research process. By using examples from my own work and the wider literature, I demonstrate how these approaches can engage diverse communities and promote greater recognition for geoscience communication.
Miles Richardson
Geosci. Commun., 6, 11–14, https://doi.org/10.5194/gc-6-11-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/gc-6-11-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
There has also been a stark loss of wildlife since 1970, yet climate change receives far greater attention. The
warming stripeshave shown how simple graphics can engage broad audiences. The
nature stripesshow how the loss of wildlife and biodiversity can also be presented in a similar way for positive effects.
Emily E. Zawacki, Wendy Bohon, Scott Johnson, and Donna J. Charlevoix
Geosci. Commun., 5, 363–380, https://doi.org/10.5194/gc-5-363-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/gc-5-363-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
To determine the best strategies for geoscience communication on TikTok, we created a TikTok account called
Terra Explore. We produced 48 educational geoscience videos and evaluated each video’s performance. Our most-viewed videos received nearly all of their views from TikTok’s algorithmic recommendation feed, and the videos that received the most views were related to a recent newsworthy event (e.g., earthquake) or explained the geology of a recognizable area.
Sara Pasqualetto, Luisa Cristini, and Thomas Jung
Geosci. Commun., 5, 87–100, https://doi.org/10.5194/gc-5-87-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/gc-5-87-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
Many projects in their reporting phase are required to provide a clear plan for evaluating the results of those efforts aimed at translating scientific results to a broader audience. This paper illustrates methodologies and strategies used in the framework of a European research project to assess the impact of knowledge transfer activities, both quantitatively and qualitatively, and provides recommendations and hints for developing a useful impact plan for scientific projects.
Annique van der Boon, Andrew J. Biggin, Greig A. Paterson, and Janine L. Kavanagh
Geosci. Commun., 5, 55–66, https://doi.org/10.5194/gc-5-55-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/gc-5-55-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
We present the Magnetic to the Core project, which communicated palaeomagnetism to members of the general public through hands-on experiments. The impact of the project was tested with an interactive quiz, which shows that this outreach event was successful in impacting visitors’ learning. We hope our Magnetic to the Core project can serve as an inspiration for other Earth science laboratories looking to engage a wide audience and measure the success and impact of their outreach activities.
Christopher Chagumaira, Joseph G. Chimungu, Dawd Gashu, Patson C. Nalivata, Martin R. Broadley, Alice E. Milne, and R. Murray Lark
Geosci. Commun., 4, 245–265, https://doi.org/10.5194/gc-4-245-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/gc-4-245-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
Our study is concerned with how the uncertainty in spatial information about environmental variables can be communicated to stakeholders who must use this information to make decisions. We tested five methods for communicating the uncertainty in spatial predictions by eliciting the opinions of end-users about the usefulness of the methods. End-users preferred methods based on the probability that concentrations are below or above a nutritionally significant threshold.
Elisabeth M. Stephens, David J. Spiegelhalter, Ken Mylne, and Mark Harrison
Geosci. Commun., 2, 101–116, https://doi.org/10.5194/gc-2-101-2019, https://doi.org/10.5194/gc-2-101-2019, 2019
Short summary
Short summary
The UK Met Office ran an online game to highlight the best methods of communicating uncertainty in their online forecasts and to widen engagement in probabilistic weather forecasting. The game used a randomized design to test different methods of presenting uncertainty and to enable participants to experience being
luckyor
unluckywhen the most likely scenario did not occur. Over 8000 people played the game; we found players made better decisions when provided with forecast uncertainty.
Maria Loroño-Leturiondo, Paul O'Hare, Simon J. Cook, Stephen R. Hoon, and Sam Illingworth
Geosci. Commun., 2, 39–53, https://doi.org/10.5194/gc-2-39-2019, https://doi.org/10.5194/gc-2-39-2019, 2019
Short summary
Short summary
Urban centres worldwide are adversely affected by flooding and air pollution. Effective communication between experts and citizens is key to understanding and limiting the impact of these hazards, as citizens have valuable knowledge based on their day-to-day experiences. In this study, we compare five different communication formats that can facilitate the required dialogue and explore the best ways and optimal circumstances in which these can be implemented.
Cited articles
Altmeppen, K.: Schwierige Verhältnisse: Interdependenzen zwischen
Journalismus und PR, Springer VS, Wiesbaden, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-322-80469-3,
2004.
Anderson, J. and Chiavari, J.: Understanding and improving NGO position on
CCS, Enrgy. Proced., 1, 4811–4817, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2009.02.308, 2009.
Anshelm, J. and Hansson, A.: The Last Chance to Save the Planet? An Analysis
of the Geoengineering Advocacy Discourse in the Public Debate, Environmental
Humanities, 5, 101–123, https://doi.org/10.1215/22011919-3615433, 2014.
Ashworth, P., Boughe, N., Mayhe, M., and Milla, F.: From research to action:
Now we have to move on CCS communication, Int. J. Greenh. Gas Con., 4,
426–433, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijggc.2009.10.012, 2010.
Barker, D. J., Turner, S. A., Napier-Moore, P. A., Clark, M., and Davison, J.
E.: CO2 Capture in the Cement Industry, Enrgy. Proced., 1, 87–94,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2009.01.014, 2009.
Bammé, A., Kotzmann, E., and Reschberg, H.: Unverständliche
Wissenschaft – Probleme und Perspektiven der Wissenschaftspublizistik,
Profil, München, 1989.
Berg, H.: Wissenschaftsjournalismus zwischen Elfenbeinturm und Boulevard –
Eine Langzeitanalyse der Wissenschaftsberichterstattung deutscher Zeitungen,
Springer VS, Wiesbaden, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-21157-8_2, 2018.
Berinsky, A. J. and Kinder, D. R.: Making Sense of Issues Through Media
Frames: Understanding the Kosovo Crisis, J. Polit., 68, 640–656,
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2508.2006.00451.x, 2006.
BMBF (Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung): Entwicklungsstand und
Perspektiven von CCS-Technologien in Deutschland, Gemeinsamer Bericht des
BMWi, BMU und BMBD für die Bundesregierung, available at:
https://www.bmu.de/pressemitteilung/entwicklungsstand-und-perspektiven-von-ccs-technologien-in-deutschland/
(last access: April 2016), 2007.
Braun, C., Merk, C., Pönitzsch, G., Rehdanz, K., and Schmidt, U.: Public
Perception of Climate Engineering and Carbon Capture and Storage in Germany:
Survey Evidence, Clim. Policy, 18, 471–484,
https://doi.org/10.1080/14693062.2017.1304888, 2017.
Brumfiel, G.: Supplanting the old media?, Nature, 458, 274–277,
https://doi.org/10.1038/458274a, 2009.
Buck, H. J.: Climate Engineering: Spectacle, tragedy or solution? A content
analysis of news media framing, in: Interventions: Interpretive Approaches to
Global Climate Governance: (De)constructing the Greenhouse, edited by:
Methmann, C., Rothe, D., and Stephan, B., 166–181,
https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203385579, Routledge, London, 2013.
Cacciatore, M. A., Scheufele, D. A., and Iyengar, S.: The End of Framing as
we Know it – and the Future of Media Effects, Mass Commun. Soc., 19, 7–23,
https://doi.org/10.1080/15205436.2015.1068811, 2015.
Cacioppo, J. T., Gardner, W. L., and Bernston, G. G.: Beyond bipolar
conceptualization and measures: The case of attitudes and evaluative space,
Pers. Soc. Psychol. Rev., 1, 3–25, 1997.
Chase, W.: Public issue management: The new science, Public Relations Journal, 33, 25–26, 1977.
Chrysostomidis, I., Perumalpillai, S., Bohm, M., Crombie, M., Beynon, E., and
Lee, A.: CO2 Capture Project's CCS Stakeholder Issues Review and
Analysis, Enrgy. Proced., 37, 7832–7839, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2013.06.676,
2013.
Cobb, R. W. and Elder, C. D.: The Politics of Agenda-Building: An Alternative
Perspective for Modern Democratic Theory, J. Polit., 33, 892–915,
https://doi.org/10.2307/2128415, 1971.
Deutscher Presserat: Pressekodex, 2008, available at:
http://www.presserat.info/inhalt/der-pressekodex/pressekodex.html (last
access: April 2015), 2008.
De Vreese, C. H., Boomgaarden, H. G., and Semetko, H. A.: (In)direct Framing
Effects: The Effects on Public Support for Turkish Membership in thE European
Union, Commun. Res., 38, 179–205, https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650210384934, 2011.
Dowd, A. M., Itaoka, K., Ashworth, P., Saito, A., and de Best-Waldhober, M.:
Investigating the Link Between Knowledge and Perception of CO2 and
CCS: An International Study, Int. J. Greenh. Gas Con., 28, 79–87,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijggc.2014.06.009, 2014.
Downs, A.: Up and Down with Ecology – the Issue-Attention Cycle, Public
Interest, 28, 38–50, 1972.
Duan, H.: The Public Perspective of Carbon Capture and Storage for
CO2 Emission Reductions in China, Energ. Policy, 38, 5281–5289,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2010.05.040, 2010.
Dukat, R., Treber, M., Bals, D., and Kier, G.: CO2-Abscheidung und
-Lagerung als Beitrag zum Klimaschutz?, available at:
https://germanwatch.org/de/1816 (last access: June 2017), 2004.
Dunwoody, S. and Peters, H.: Massenmedien und Risikowahrnehmung, in:
Bayerische Rück (Edn.): Risiko ist ein Konstrukt, 317–343, Bayerische
Rück, München, 1993.
Dütschke, E., Schumann, D., and Pietzner, K.: Chances for and Limitations
of Acceptance for CCS in Germany, in: Geological Storage of CO2 –
Long Term Security Aspects, edited by: Liebscher, A. and Münch, U.,
Advanced Technologies in Earth Sciences, 229–245, Springer International,
Heidelberg, 2015.
Finucane, M. L., Alhakami, A., Slovic, P., and Johnson, S. M.: The Affect
Heuristic in Judgments of Risks and Benefits, J. Behav. Decis. Making, 13,
1–17, https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-0771(200001/03)13:1<1::AID-BDM333>3.0.CO;2-S,
2000.
Fischer, W., Hake, J.-F., Kuckshinrichs, W., Schenk, O., and Schumann, D.:
Carbon Capture and Storage – politische und gesellschaftliche Positionen in
Deutschland, Technikfolgenabschätzung – Theorie und Praxis, 19, 38–46,
oekom, München, 2010.
Galtung, J. and Ruge, M.: The structure of foreign news. The presentation of
the Congo, Cuba and Cyprus Crises in four Norwegian newspapers, J. Peace
Res., 2, 64–91, 1965.
Goerne, G. V., Weinlich, F. H., and May, F.: STABILITY – CO2 Storage
Ability of deep Saline Formations. Anforderungen und Vorschläge zur
Erstellung von Leitfäden und Richtlinien für eine dauerhafte und
sichere Speicherung von CO2, BGR, available at:
https://www.bgr.bund.de/DE/Themen/Nutzung_tieferer_Untergrund_CO2Speicherung/Downloads/stability-abschlussbericht.pdf?__blob=publicationFile&v=4
(last access: November 2016), 2010.
Goffman, E.: Frame Analysis: An Essay on the Organization of Experience,
Harper and Row, London, 1974.
Greenpeace: Der Tod aus dem Schlot – Wie Kohlekraftwerke unsere Gesundheit
ruinieren, available at:
https://www.greenpeace.de/sites/www.greenpeace.de/files/publications/greenpeace-studie-tod-aus-dem-schlot-s01652.pdf
(last access: February 2016), 2013.
Harlow, R. F.: Building a Public Relations Definition, Public Relat. Rev., 2,
34–42, 1976.
Heisterkamp, I.: Hintergrundpapier: Genese und Scheitern des deutschen
CCS-Gesetzgebungsverfahrens (2008–2009), Germanwatch e.V., Bonn, available
at:
https://germanwatch.org/sites/germanwatch.org/files/publication/3550.pdf
(last access: February 2019), 2010.
Herrmann-Giovanelli, I.: Wissenschaftskommunikation aus der Sicht von
Forschenden – Eine qualitative Befragung in den Natur- und
Sozialwissenschaften, UVK, Konstanz, https://doi.org/10.5771/1615-634x-2014-2-289,
2013.
Hoffjann, O.: Journalismus und Public Relations – Ein Theorieentwurf der
Intersystembeziehungen in sozialen Konflikten, 2nd Edn., Springer VS,
Wiesbaden, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-531-90744-4, 2007.
Hoffjann, O. and Arlt, H.-J.: Die nächste Öffentlichkeit –
Theorieentwurf und Szenarien, Springer VS, Wiesbaden,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-09373-0, 2015.
Höhn, T.: Wissenschafts-PR – Eine Studie zur Öffentlichkeitsarbeit
von Hochschulen und außeruniversitären Forschungseinrichtungen, UVK,
Konstanz, 2011.
Holzer, B.: Die Differenzierung von Netzwerk, Interaktion und Gesellschaft,
in: Netzwerke in der funktional differenzierten Gesellschaft, edited by:
Bommes, M. and Tacke, V., Springer VS, Wiesbaden,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-531-92597-4_3, 2011.
IEA (International Energy Agency): Technology Roadmap, Carbon Capture and
Storage, OECD/IEA, available at:
https://webstore.iea.org/technology-roadmap-carbon-capture-and-storage-2009
(last access: June 2017), 2009.
Itaoka, K., Saito, A., Paukovic, M., de Best-Waldhober, M., Dowd, A. M.,
Jeanneret, T., Ashworth, P., and James, M.: Understanding how Individuals
Perceive Carbon Dioxide: Implications for Acceptance of Carbon Dioxide
Capture and Storage, CSIRO Report EP 118160, CSIRO, Canberra, 2012.
Jarren, O. and Röttger, U.: Steuerung, Reflexierung und Interpenetration:
Kernelemente einer strukturationstheoretisch begründeten PR-Theorie, in:
Theorien der Public Relations: Grundlagen und Perspektiven der PR-Forschung,
edited by: Röttger, U., Springer VS, Wiesbaden,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-531-91360-5_2, 2009.
Kahneman, D. and Tversky, A.: Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under
Risk,
Econometrica, 47, 263–292, 1979.
Kalkuhl, M., Edenhofer, O., and Lessmann, K.: The Role of Carbon Capture and
Sequestration Policy for Climate Change Mitigation, Environmental and
Resource Economics, 60, 55–80, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10640-013-9757-5, 2015.
Kepplinger, H. M. and Ehmig, S. C.: Predicting news decisions. An empirical
test of the two-component theory of news selection, Communications, 31,
25–43, https://doi.org/10.1515/COMMUN.2006.003, 2006.
Kepplinger, H. M. and Post, S.: Der Einfluss der Medien auf die
Klimaforschung, Forschungsmagazin, 25–28, Johannes-Gutenberg-Universität
Mainz, 2008.
Kohring, M.: Die Funktion des Wissenschaftsjournalismus: ein
systemtheoretischer Entwurf, Springer VS, Wiesbaden,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-322-86877-0, 1997.
Kohring, M.: Wissenschaftsjournalismus – Forschungsüberblick und
Theorieentwurf, UVK, Konstanz, 2005.
Kraeusel, J. and Möst, D.: Carbon Capture and Storage on its Way to
Large-Scale Deployment: Social Acceptance and Willingness to pay in Germany,
Energ. Policy, 49, 642–651, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2012.07.006, 2012.
Krause, R. M., Carley, S. R., Warren, D. C., Rupp, J. A., and Graham, J. D.:
`Not in (or under) my backyard': Geographic Proximity and Public Acceptance
of Carbon Capture and Storage Facilities, Risk Anal., 34, 529–540,
https://doi.org/10.1111/risa.12119, 2014.
Krüger, T.: Das Hegemonieprojekt der ökologischen Modernisierung: Die
Konflikte um Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) in der internationalen
Klimapolitik, Transcript Verlag, Bielefeld, https://doi.org/10.14361/9783839432334,
2015.
Lau, R. R.: Two explanations for negativity effects in political behavior,
Am. J. Polit. Sci., 29, 119–138, 1985.
Lobby Control: RWE und Bundesanstalt für Geowissenschaften und Rohstoffe
– Kandidat für die Lobbykratie-Medaille,
available at:
https://www.lobbycontrol.de/2011/11/rwe-und-bundesanstalt-fur-geowissenschaften-und-rohstoffe-kandidat-fur-die-lobbykratie-medaille/ (last access: August 2018),
2011.
L'Orange Seigo, S.: Public Perception and Communication of Carbon Capture and
Storage (CCS), Dissertation ETH Zürich No. 21302, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2014.07.017, 2013.
L'Orange Seigo, S., Dohle, S., and Siegrist, M.: Public Perception of Carbon
Capture and Storage (CCS): A Review, Renewable and Sustainable Energy
Reviews, 38, 848–863, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2014.07.017, 2014.
Luhmann, N.: Die Wissenschaft der Gesellschaft, Suhrkamp, Berlin, 1992.
Macnamara, J.: Journalism – PR Relations Revisited: The Good News, the Bad
News, and Insights Into Tomorrow's News, Public Relat. Rev., 40,
739–750, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2014.07.002, 2014.
Maier, M., Milde, J., Post, S., Günther, L., Ruhrmann, G., and Barkela,
B.: Communicating science evidence: scientists', journalists', and audiences'
expectations and evaluations regarding the representation of scientific
uncertainty, Communications, 41, 239–264,
https://doi.org/10.1515/commun-2016-0010, 2016.
Malone, E. L., Bradbury, J. A., and Dooley, J. J.: Keeping CCS Stakeholder
Involvement in Perspective, Enrgy. Proced., 1, 4789–4794,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2009.02.305, 2009.
Mander, S., Wood, R., and Gough, C.: Exploring the Media Framing of Carbon
Capture and Storage and its Influence on Public Perceptions, IOP C. Ser. Earth Env., 6, 532014,
https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1307/6/3/532014, 2009.
Marcinkowski, F.: Publizistik als autopoietisches System. Politik und
Massenmedien. Eine systemtheoretische Analyse, Westdeutscher Verlag,
Wiesbaden, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-322-87740-6, 1993.
Marcinkowski F.: Die “Medialisierung” der Politik – Veränderte
Bedingungen politischer Interessenvermittlung, in: Bürgergesellschaft und
Demokratie, edited by: Speth, R. and Zimmer, A., 71–99, Springer, Wiesbaden,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-09433-1_4, 2015.
Meyen, M.: Medialisierung, Medien & Kommunikationswissenschaft, 57,
23–28, 2009.
Meyer, M.: The Rise of Knowledge Broker, Sci. Commun., 31,
118–127, https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547009359797, 2010.
Murcott, T. and Williams, A.: The Challenges for Science Journalism in the
UK,
Prog. Phys. Geogr., 37, 152–160, https://doi.org/10.1177/0309133312471285, 2012.
Nelkin, D.: Selling Science: How the Press Covers Science and Technology,
Freeman, New York, 1995.
Nippa, M. and Lee, R. P.: Gesellschaftliche Akzeptanz der Kohle und die
Zukunft der deutschen Kohleforschung, Chem.-Ing.-Tech., 86,
1669–1677, https://doi.org/10.1002/cite.201300190, 2014.
Nisbet, M. C.: Communicating Climate Change. Why Frames Matter for Public
Engagement, Environment: Science and Policy for Sustainable Development,
51, 12–23, https://doi.org/10.3200/ENVT.51.2.12-23, 2009.
Nisbet, M. C. and Fahy, D.: The Need for Knowledge-Based Journalism in
Politicized Science Debates, Ann. Am. Acad. Polit. SS, 658, 223–234,
https://doi.org/10.1177/0002716214559887, 2015.
Olmastroni, F.: Framing War: Public Opinion and Decision-Making in
Comparative Perspective, Routledge, London, 2014.
Oltra, C., Sala, R., Solà, R., Di Masso, M., and Rowe, G.: Lay
Perceptions of Carbon Capture and Storage Technology, Int. J.
Greenh. Gas Con., 4, 698–706, 2010.
Pietzner, K., Schumann, D., Tvedt, S. D., Torvatn, H. Y., Næss, R.,
Reiner, D. M., Anghel, S., Cirmaru, D., Constantin, C., Daamen, D. D. L.,
Dudu, A., Esken, A., Gemeni, V., Ivan, L., Koukouzas, N., Kristiansen, G.,
Markos, A., Ter Mors, E., Nihfidov, O. C., Papadimitriou, J., Samoila, I. R.,
Sava, C., Stephenson, M. H., and Terwel, B.: Public Awareness and Perceptions
of Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage (CCS): Insights From Surveys
Administered to Representative Samples in six European Countries, Enrgy.
Proced., 4, 6300–6306, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2011.02.645, 2011.
Pietzner, K., Schwarz, A., Duetschke, E., and Schumann, D.: Media Coverage of
Four Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) Projects in Germany: Analysis of 1.115
Regional Newspaper Articles, Enrgy. Proced., 63, 7141–7148,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2014.11.750, 2014.
Praetorius, B. and Schumacher, K.: Greenhouse Gas Mitigation in a Carbon
Constrained World: The Role of Carbon Capture and Storage, Energ. Policy, 37,
5081–5093, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2009.07.018, 2009.
Praetorius, B. and Stechow, C. V.: Electricity Gap Versus Climate Change:
Electricity Politics and the Potential Role of CCS in Germany, in: Catching
the Carbon. The Politics and Policy of Carbon Capture and Storage, edited by:
Meadowcroft, J. and Langhelle, O., Cheltenham, Edward Elgar Publishing,
Cheltenham, 127–157, 2009.
Raupp, J. and Vogelgesang, J.: Medienresonanzanalyse – Eine Einführung
in Theorie und Praxis, Springer VS, Wiesbaden,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-531-91605-7, 2009.
Reich, Z.: Measuring the Impact of PR on Published News in Increasingly
Fragmented News Environments – A Multifaceted Approach, Journalism Stud.,
11, 799–816, https://doi.org/10.1080/14616701003760550, 2010.
Rögener, W. and Wormer, H.: Defining Criteria for Good Environmental
Journalism and Testing Their Applicability: An Environmental News Review as a
First Step to More Evidence Based Environmental Science Reporting, Public
Underst. Sci., 26, 4178–4333, https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662515597195,
2017.
Sammer, P.: Storytelling – die Zukunft von PR und Marketing, O'Reilly,
Heidelberg, 2014.
Schäfer, M.: Wissenschaft in den Medien, Die Medialisierung
naturwissenschaftlicher Themen, Springer VS, Wiesbaden, 2007.
Schäfer, M.: Medialisierung der Wissenschaft? Empirische Untersuchung
eines wissenschaftssoziologischen Konzeptes, Z. Soziol.,
37, 206–225, 2008.
Schäfer, M. and Schlichting, I.: Media Representations of Climate Change:
A Meta-Analysis of the Research Field, Environ. Commun., 8,
142–160, https://doi.org/10.1080/17524032.2014.914050, 2014.
Schnedler, T.: Getrennte Welten? Journalismus und PR in Deutschland,
nr-Werkstatt, Vol. 20, NetzwerkRecherche, Berlin, 2011.
Schneider, S.: Interpreting Science, Proceedings of the Interpreting World
Heritage Conference, San Juan, Puerto Rico, 155–158,
available at: http://www.ntcu.edu.tw/hcwu/7/9.pdf (last access: June 2016), 2006.
Schneider, S.: Der öffentliche Diskurs um die geologische Speicherung von
Kohlenstoffdioxid (CCS) – Strukturgeographische Differenzierungen und ihre
Implikationen für die Medienpräsenz wissenschaftlicher Forschung in
deutschen Tageszeitungen am Beispiel von CCS, LIT, 2017.
Schumann, D., Dütschke, E., and Pietzner, K.: Public Perception of
CO2
Offshore Storage in Germany: Regional Differences and Determinants, Enrgy.
Proced., 63, 7096–7112, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2014.11.744, 2014.
Skrylnikow, I.: CCS: Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage – Technologische
Risiken und regulatorische Herausforderungen, Natur und Recht, 32, 543–550,
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10357-010-1922-9, 2010.
Smid, K.: Greenpeace: Stellungnahme zum Referentenentwurf Gesetz zur Regelung
von Abscheidung, Transport und dauerhafter Speicherung von Kohlendioxid, available at:
https://www.greenpeace.de/sites/www.greenpeace.de/files/CCS-stellungnahme-final_0.pdf (last
access: June 2017), 2009.
Ten Eyck, T. and Williment, M.: The National Media and Things Genetic:
Coverage in the New York Times (1971–2001), Sci. Commun., 25,
129–152, 2003.
Terwel, B. W. and Ter Mors, E.: Host Community Compensation in a Carbon
Dioxide Capture and Storage (CCS) Context: Comparing the Preferences of Dutch
Citizens and Local Government Authorities, Environ. Sci. Policy,
50, 15–23, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2015.01.015, 2015.
Tokushige, K., Akimoto, K., and Tomoda, T.: Public Perceptions on the
Acceptance of Geological Storage of Carbon Dioxide and Information
Influencing the Acceptance, Int. J. Greenh. Gas Con.,
1, 101–112, https://doi.org/10.1016/S1750-5836(07)00020-5, 2007.
Trench, B.: Universities, science communication and professionalism, Journal
of Science Communication, 16, 1–8, https://doi.org/10.22323/2.16050302, 2017.
Trumbo, C.: Constructing Climate Change: Claims and Frames in US News
Coverage of an Environmental Issue, Public Underst. Sci., 5,
269–283, https://doi.org/10.1088/0963-6625/5/3/006, 1996.
Ungerer, F.: Emotions and Emotional Language in English and German News
Stories, in: The Language of Emotions: Conceptualization, Expression, and
Theoretical Foundation, edited by: Niemeier, S. and Dirven, R., John
Benjamins Publishing, Amsterdam, 307–328, 1997.
Visschers, V. H., Keller, C., and Siegrist, M.: Climate Change Benefits and
Energy Supply Benefits as Determinants of Acceptance of Nuclear Power
Stations: Investigating an Explanatory Model, Energ. Policy, 39,
3621–3629, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2011.03.064, 2011.
Wallquist, L., Visschers, V. H., Dohle, S., and Siegrist, M.: The Role of
Convictions and Trust for Public Protest Potential in the Case of CCS, Hum. Ecol. Risk Assess., 18, 919–932,
https://doi.org/10.1080/10807039.2012.688719, 2012.
Wang, K., Wang, C., Lu, X., and Chen, J.: Scenario Analysis on CO2 Emissions
Reduction Potential in China's Iron and Steel Industry, Energ. Policy, 35,
2320–2335, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2006.08.007, 2007.
Weaver, D., Lively, E., and Bimber, B.: Searching for a Frame: News Media
Tell the Story of Technological Progress, Risk, and Regulation, Sci.
Commun., 31, 139–166, https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547009340345, 2009.
Weingart, P.: Wissenschaftssoziologie, Transcript, Bielefeld, 2003.
Williams, A. and Gajevic, S.: Selling Science? Source Struggles, Public
Relations, and UK Press Coverage of Animal-Human Hybrid Embryos, Journalism
Stud., 14, 507–522, https://doi.org/10.1080/1461670X.2012.718576, 2013.
Wierzbicka, A.: The relevance of Language to the study of Emotions,
Psychol. Inq., 6, 248–252, 1995.
WWF: Positionspapier des WWF zum Energiekonzept der Bundesregierung, available at:
http://www.wwf.de/fileadmin/fm-wwf/Publikationen-PDF/Positionspapier_Energiekonzepts.pdf (last
access: August 2016), 2010.
Xu, C. and Cang, D.: A Brief Overview of Low CO2 Emission Technologies for
Iron and Steel Making, J. Iron Steel Res., 17, 1–7, https://doi.org/10.1016/S1006-706X(10)60064-7, 2010.
Short summary
CCS media coverage in Germany was dominated by other stakeholders than science itself. If science will remain a proactive element of science communication, new approaches for future science PR have be deduced. Among these is a more differentiated understanding of target audiences and regional concerns. Furthermore, science communication has to gain a better understanding of sociocultural contexts to become more effective and successful.
CCS media coverage in Germany was dominated by other stakeholders than science itself. If...
Altmetrics
Final-revised paper
Preprint